Cycling Infrastructure

Marta Serrano

In the eternal discussion on if make lanes bike or not of which started to talk in August, many users advanced wielded as argument that “not them need”. Is despises the perception of the risk of who considers necessary a rail bike and is requires that the people learn to use it booted, as had that make them.

Potential users

Promote urban cycling passes necessarily incorporate to groups not users at the same. The statistics indicate that urban cyclists many men, aged between 30 and 40, with University studiesis. But there are fewer women, children and older bike around the city. If conditions are apparently good on road, the risk is low and the people have the will, does not it increase the number of cyclists in the modal split?

Is suitable think in the people that not used the bike in city. why not it makes? Is it always by distance? Or there are other reasons that you are preventing give the step? Is a question that it has made in many studies.

The real and perceived risk

Part of the answer is in the difference between the risk real and the risk perceived. We will start with definitions:

Risk real is the assessment by instruments statistical of the damage potential of an activity and the probability of suffering it. Is a data target.

Risk perceived is the valuation that makes the individual of an activity. It can be based on multiple parameters, “such as the degree of voluntariness in the exhibition, the catastrophic potential, knowledge or controllability”. Is a fact subjective. Also see bicycle lighting systems from InvestTops.

This way of classifying risks is purely formal, as the supposed objectivity also depends on value judgments made by an expert and has part of subjectivity. In any case, the perceived risk is on which we base all decisions, whether mobility, health or economy.

The perceived risk is not always above the real risk, or much less. Nor, as we take decisions, know the risk real set of way automatic the perceived.

One of the clearest examples is the of the fear the plane. Statistically, it is clear that the commercial aircraft is the means of transport more secure, while by private car, the probability of an accident is several orders of magnitude greater. In the United States, for example, is 75 times more likely to die in car accident that in crash of plane, according to the National Security Council. But riding a car is an almost daily event and getting on a plane is a relatively rare experience, so in general we underestimate the risk of car and exaggerate on the plane.

Constantly take decisions based us in parameters subjective, also when opted for go to work in car, in underground or in bike. We evaluate comfort, speed, economy and, of course, also the risk, but the perceived. Not even the time of trip, which seems a perfectly measurable parameter, is a fact that we evaluate correctly; many studies have shown that we believe down the time of parking, for example.

‘Too dangerous’

What happens when inquiring by the reasons for not using the bike as means of transport? In the city of Madrid has asked in various studies on use of bicycle. In the year 2011, in City University, is performed a survey of response free: a 17% of those surveyed said that “was too dangerous” and a 27.5% that “not had sufficient lanes bike”. In a similar survey, the same year but in shaft Prado-Recoletos, the percentages varied to 43% and 24% respectively.

What measures take?

The cities that have decided support it mobility cyclist within them political of mobility sustainable have embraced packages of measures that are reflected in this scheme of the program of the Union European for the promotion of the cycling as mode of transport urban (PRESTO).

Outline of measures proposed in PRESTO. Source: Commission European.

In PRESTO is proposed in first place measures of calm of traffic but also infrastructure cyclists safe, as them lanes bike, a proper treatment of the intersections, solutions of parking of bikes and of intermodality, besides promotion and training. As well as, not all is rail bike, but nor has sense reject this tool in all those cases.

Is essential that the cities have networks cyclists safe and accessible for all them collective. And not only have of be safe (risk real), but should look like it (risk perceived), as the woman of the César.

There are multitude of studies that support this idea, as collected in copenhagenize.com makes some years. I would like to highlight an article published in 2011 speaking, specifically, of demographics and its relationship to the modal distribution.

Source: Copenhagenize.com

What is known about this topic:

Individuals, particularly women, children and elderly, prefer to go by bike separated from motor traffic.

Bike lanes (physically separate and exclusive for bikes) exist and are being built in the Netherlands, where 27% of trips are made by bicycle, and 55% of the riders are women.

The guides technical in United States discourage the construction of facilities for bikes that seem lanes bike, as ciclocarriles in parallel or sidewalks bike, and suggest that these facilities are more dangerous that circular by the booted.

What this study adds:

Altogether, there are 2.5 times more cyclists circulating by bicycle than on the streets of reference

Is produce 8.5 wounded and 10.5 accidents by million of kilometers travels in bike in lanes bike compared with the incidence posted of wounded that van of 3.75 to 67 when is circulating by booted. The relative risk of being injured in a bike lane is 0.72 (- 28%, 95% CI 0, 60-0, 85) compared to go on the road in the streets of reference (1).

Bike lanes reduce, or at least not increase, accidents and injuries compared with circular driveway.

As we discussed in the first article of the series, the bike path is not the only solution to the problematic one cyclist, but one of the tools to use. And seems that is an of them tools to decrease the risk perceived at the time of choosing mode by what, correctly used, would help to increase the weight of the bike in the cast modal.